Educational needs, perception, and perspectives of oncologists regarding compassionate use programs in Asia

Figures & data

Table 1. Response data for the key question items (N = 102).

Questions/responses	Percentage (n)
1) How many CUP applications have you submitted to pharmaceutical companies in the last year?
1–10	80.39% (82)
10–50	17.65% (18)
≥50	1.96% (2)
2) Does your institution provide resources/training on how to apply for CUPs?
Yes	24.51% (25)
No	75.49% (77)
3) Rate adequacy of your knowledge on CUPs and application processes, including country regulations
Poor	11.76% (12)
Fair	33.33% (34)
Good	41.18% (42)
Very good	9.8% (10)
Excellent	3.92% (4)
4) Which educational model related to CUPs would be helpful for you?
Overview of CUPs	10.78% (11)
Country CUP regulations overview	6.86% (7)
CUP application process	5.88% (6)
All of the above	76.47% (78)
5) Clarity on application process for CUP set in place by pharmaceutical companies
Totally unclear	5.88% (6)
Somewhat unclear	22.55% (23)
Mostly clear	59.8% (61)
Very clear	8.82% (9)
Extremely clear	2.94% (3)
6) Clarity on country regulations and processes for applying to CUPs set in place by your country's regulatory authorities
Totally unclear	12.75% (13)
Somewhat unclear	33.33% (34)
Mostly clear	43.14% (44)
Very clear	9.8% (10)
Extremely clear	0.98% (1)
7) How challenging is it to educate eligible patients on CUPs?
Very challenging	6.86% (7)
Somewhat challenging	38.24% (39)
Not very challenging	49.02% (50)
Not at all challenging	5.88% (6)
8) How do you learn about existing CUPs? (select all applicable responses)
By reaching out to pharmaceutical sponsor	85.29% (87)
Through another healthcare provider	51.96% (53)
Through my institution	17.65% (18)
Through patients or caregivers	6.86% (7)

Figure 1. Country-wise preference for the content of educational modules. The majority (76.5%) of the respondents favored a complete educational module on CUPs, covering an overview of CUPs, country-specific CUP regulations, and the application process. Though country-wise response rates on preference for content were different, an inter-country comparison could not be performed as sample sizes across the countries were highly variable.

Figure 2. Source of awareness on existing CUPs based on the type of clinical practice. Type of clinical practice plays a statistically significant role in awareness regarding existing CUPs (p=.0066). Reaching out to a pharmaceutical sponsor was the most favored method of gaining awareness by oncologists across all types of clinical practices (multiple options were permitted for selection of the response). Public, public/government hospital/clinic; private, private hospital/clinic; mixed, both public and private hospitals/clinics

Figure 3. Association between clarity of application process and number of applications submitted for CUP over the last 12 months. The number of applications submitted was significantly associated with the clarity of the application process for CUP set in place by pharmaceutical sponsors (p=.0321). Participants with the response as "mostly clear" submitted the highest number of applications to pharmaceutical companies over the last 12 months.